Who do you think is the most bankable movie star box office star now?

Internationally and domestically have different stories.

Domestically, it seems that Sandra Bullock is now the most bankable female movie star with 4 out of her last 6 movies doing $159 m + (If Gravity gets there).

Then there's Leo, Pitt, etc. on the male side.

But who is the biggest movie star now? I think Bullock is arguably now one of the top 3, if not 2 box office pulls of all actors/actresses. Leo/Bullock are both entering the next echelon of bankability.

So who is the most bankable star regardless of gender? Is Bullock top 2 at this point with Leo, or do people still consider Tatum/Smith/Pitt, etc up there?

It's arguable but large part of the appeal of the first Sherlock Holmes was due to RDJ starring in it.

Eh, I think Gravity would have performed similar with Charlize Theron as the lead.

1. Leo 2. Smith 3. Pitt domestic. Will Smith is still probably the biggest movie star in the whole world though.

Tatum doesn't belong in here anymore.

I think it has been mentioned many times already - the individual star bankability becomes more and more irrelevant in the domestic market.

I think consistency-wise no one beats Denzel Washington. He rarely deliversd major hits, but he also almost never misses at least $70 million.

Domestic:

1. Leo
2. Denzel
3. Pitt
4. Sandler
5. Cruise
6. Bullock
7. Aniston
8. Neeson

International:

1. Deep
2. Cruise
3. Pitt
4. Jackman
5. Leo
6. Cage
7. Aniston
8. Bullock

Sandra Bullock will soon have her 4th $150m+ grosser in the last 4 years, all original films too. Not many could claim that. Really impressive.

Bullock is definitely in the Top 2 with Leo but among them I believe Leo has an edge and I don't consider Django on Leo, 'cause it was higher pull of Tarantino and Waltz and Leo's role got acclaims only after the movie was out.

The most bankable actor is Leonardo DiCaprio.

Others are Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.

The most bankable actress is = I don't give a shit.

Bankability is losing its importance. Instead, franchises are taking over, and it's more important to studios to get a popular and loved franchise than a popular and loved star, hence why they can make great profits with franchises. All they have to do is buy the rights to a popular book series, cast some unknowns, slap on a good soundtrack, and they make a huge buck.

that's how your least favorite actress got her big break, lol.

She's not my least favourite, but even if she were...I don't care how she got her big break.

From BOG:

Bullock is most bankable actress in Hollywood. Sells in multiple genres. 4 of last 6 pics opened $30M+. None were sequels.

Romantic comedy (Proposal), sci-fi (Gravity), buddy comedy (The Heat), drama (The Blind Side).

The only way to top this year is if her next movie does $400 m at this rate...

Never been a fan of this question, since it's not necessarily about $ amount and total grosses, but more about the percentage increase an actor/actress can give a film's potential by replacing a similar actor/actress with the same script & director.

Bullock demonstrates this perfectly. In my head, Cameron Diaz in The Heat or The Proposal instead of Bullock never makes $100 million. But again, it is impossible to verify since it's always going to be based on opinion.

The

Bullock and Leo are top 2, in some order. Then Pitt.

See, this is where arguments come in. I call it, when it comes down to it. Will you sit and watch your actor do an entire film anchored by them. If you can do that, you are a cut above the ones that have a consistent fanbase, or someone that brings a comfort level to a film. You are going to see the character the actor is playing.


Case in point:

You went to see Tom Hanks in Cast Away, Forrest Gump, etc.
You went to see Will Smith in I am Legend
You went to see action stars like Ford/ Willis/ Schwarzenegger in their primes.
You went to see RDJ in Iron Man/ Sherlock, and especially Tropic Thunder. His performance was what intrigued everyone. I don't think the first Iron Man opens over 50 million without RDJ.

The issue with Bullock is any R rated comedy can have a 30s opening/ 140+ with great marketing and solid cast. Romantic Comedies and Sports films the same thing. These are bankable genres, and I think that's where the confusion is. There was a time when Bullock was #2 to Julia Roberts draw wise, because people went to see her romantic comedies for her. Gravity is a huge continued success for her. But when most saw the trailers, it's concept first. High caliber actors second.

I'd almost argue there is no major bankable stars now. Depp, Cruise, Hanks, and Smtih were the last, but they're not getting audiences in on any old film anymore to huge huge numbers. RDJ is probably the tops right, but the rest are all pretty consistently even until you start going into specific genres.

It's not a case of "If it was this actor in this role, would I see it?"

It's a case of... Which actors choose the right projects to work on for their fanbase to come out?

Every actor has a fanbase, but will the movies they work on attract them.

Sam Worthington seems to have a huge fanbase.

No it's like I said, some genre's do well no matter who is in them. That's any solid name with good marketing around them can sell a movie. It's about people going to a film just for the actor. They days of Bogart, Grant, McQueen, when they use to just sell a movie on the actor.

But I see it is just about bankability right now, for some reason I thought this was a star power thread.

Cruise still holds it in my opinion. his films no matter never cost ridiculous amounts like a Depp film, and they always pull 200+ WW.

Leo only seems to make smart decisions so he would be my number 2, and RDJ 3. Sandler/ Farrell/ and Stiller are middle tiers as well as 9/10 times they'll succeed.


Streep would be number one for me for women and Bullock number too. Both actresses can be in flops, and sell in the right film, but Streep is always there for awards consideration as well.

DiCaprio is far above the rest.

That explains why The Blind Side made 128 million more than the next highest grossing Sports Drama.

Wait, no it doesn't.

Don't ruin his narrative!

Since when do legs have anything to do with someone's bankability???????? Oh wait, they don't.

Chalk that up to awards buzz, great WOM, soft marketplace.

So 46% of the auience breakdown for Graity was female? Put any other female on her place and the female % crashes and burns.

If this doesn't prove shee's at least top 3 draws domestically and easly the biggest female draw, then nothing will.



lol, no.

I think for the most part, Bullock wasn't marketed that well. I went in a few times and many people said "Who is that" Bullock added a "Oh wow" kind of factor that of course helped the film, but the majority has not been marketed on her.

What happens if you add up the total BO of the films an individual was a lead actor/actress in and then divide it by the number of films?